Telangana High Court

Smt. Gopu Muthemma vs H. Srinivas on 3 March, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1880 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 04.02.2009 passed in

O.P.No.1638 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, the

appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter

be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of

one Gopu Nadipi Sailu (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident

that took place on 10.05.2004. It is stated that on 10.05.2004

the deceased, along with one Dumala Ashok, were proceeding

on Scooter bearing No.AP-10-K-4884 from Jannepally to the

Shivar of Chikli Village, at that time another Scooter bearing

No.AP 25 H 7322 came from opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the

deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and

died on the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident, the

deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per

month by doing agriculture labour work. On account of death of

the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. The

1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being

insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in

the petition. It is stated in the counter that the accident

occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, as such,

the claim-petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It

is also contended that driver of the crime vehicle was not

having valid and subsisting driving licence as on the date of the

accident and as such the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay

the compensation.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred on 10.05.2004 at about 7.20 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H 7322 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2

were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the

2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was

marked.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving by the rider of Scooter bearing No.AP 25 H

7322 and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,46,000/- with

interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization to be paid by the respondents jointly and

severally.

Heard and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that

though the deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- per month, the

Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that as per the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants

are also entitled to the future prospects. Therefore, it is

argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into

consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and

prayed to enhance the same.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that the income of the deceased has

rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- per month since

no documents have been produced to prove the income of the

deceased. On the point of future prospects, learned Counsel

submits that the matter has been considered by the Apex Court

in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are

entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further

2017 ACJ 2700

submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary

damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same

need not be enhanced.

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is

not challenged by the respondents.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing

agriculture labour work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month but

no proof of income has been filed. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State

of Bihar2 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of

income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum

at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non-earning member.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the

deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants are entitled

to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra).

Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/-

(Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

(2001) 8 SCC 197

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 as the dependents are

five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month and Rs.37,800/-

per annum. As per the Ex.A4-Post Mortem Examination Report,

the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the

accident, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier as

'16' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation (3 supra) instead of '17'. Adopting

multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.37,800/- x 16, which comes to Rs.6,04,800/-. The claimants

are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as

per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are

entitled to Rs.6,81,800/-.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim

made which is impermissible under law.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what

has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a

beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the

claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and

reasonable extent.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.4,46,000/- to Rs.6,81,800/-. The enhanced